Abstract

Most present day philosophers assume that chance or luck is morally relevant. That it makes a moral difference whether an action of mine has, by chance, good or bad consequences. I will defend the opposing view: There is no moral luck, luck is morally irrelevant. The examples which are taken to show that there is moral luck rest on conceptual confusions. The confusion between reasonable bad sentiments and moral responsibility (sec II), the confusion between ex ante rationality and ex post assessment (sec III), the confusion between epistemic and normative assessment (sec IV), the confusion between ideological interpretation and moral judgement (sec V). The canonical account according to which action is intentional behaviour, that the agent controls and for that she is responsible, can be defended (sec VI) if one discriminates moral from other forms of responsibility (VII).